Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

When you are committed to playing a true one guard front, you are forced to play a true ballhandler, a traditional point guard, at the front of your offense. Its that guards job to set the offense and "quarterback your team". Most teams set their teams up that way, because it allows a blending of roles in the other 4 spots much easier, and doesnt require as much imagination with your roster. Roles are easier to define when you set up your offense this way.

My guess is, that Donnie Walsh is a firm believer in playing offense this way. I say that because his entire tenure has been set up this way. he has had Vern Fleming, Michael Williams, Travis Best, Mark Jackson, and Jamal Tinsley. He has also hired coaches (except for Jack Ramsey) who shared this philosophy.....Larry Brown, Larry Bird, and Rick Carlisle among the most committed to it as I see it. There is nothing wrong with this thinking, as most teams try and play this way too.

However, there is another way to play, both in personnel and in strategy and alignment, and thats playing a 2 guard front. Now, Im not just talking playing 2 point guard at the same time and using one of them off the ball (like we use Sarunas, or like we used AJ sometimes in the past), Im talking about truly sharing the ballhandling responsibilities, and lining one guard at the right top, and the other parallel or above him on the opposite side of the floor.

This is a major characteristic of the Phil Jackson/Tex Winter triple post offense (it somehow got called the triangle somewhere along the line, but Tex called it the triple post long before then.) Thats playing 2 guard out top, usually 2 wings, and 1 post player playing in the center of the floor. This version or method of playing was much more popular in the bygone era of basketball, in the 60's and earlier. Tonight I wanted to make the suggestion that we need to look, starting next season probably at the earliest, of playing a 2 guard front, and suggest a few ways we can even do it sooner than that if we chose.

There are a million reasons why i think this adjustment needs to be made not just by the Pacers but my many more teams in the NBA, but Ill try and narrow it down to just a few.

1. It allows you to initiate your offense easier and faster, because the 1st pass in the halfcourt is easier and shorter. In a traditional set up, you need a really good guard up top to read the defense and take the ball to the side the play is supposed to go to. Its a tough job personnel wise to find a guy who can do that successfully and consistently, and not be a liability in other areas of the game. With a 2 guard front plays can be ran from either side, and in a more flexible free flowing manner.

2. It allows you to play your best players, because you dont need the true "point guard" in the game. You also can play players in a 2 guard front system that maybe you couldnt playing the other way, at least not as much or with as much responsibility.

With our team for instance, Sarunas nor Daniels really can handle the ball up front by themselves and quarterback a team against pressure defense. However, without the decision making part of the job on their backs (you initiate offense only on the side you are on, you dont need to choose), then they both could play in the backcourt playing in this way. The 2 guard front also lets guys who normally dont fit the size requirements of their skill set (think BJ Armstrong and Steve Kerr) play minutes and have a role.

3. It allows you to space the floor better, and give your post players more room to manuever. By having 4 perimeter players on the floor spaced out, you can space the floor and make the defense struggle to double team your post guys. For an example from recent past, think The Kobe/Shaq Lakers, and think about the Rockets championship teams.

4. It lets you move the ball from side to side easier. This is why Dr Jack believed in it so much....he wanted the ball swung and reversed, making the defense shift. Its easier to swing the ball because your passing angles are better, and you have shorter passes. It also sets you up for cutters from one side to the other, and for driving lanes created by ball movement. With our team, this probably sets up the skills of a slasher like Marquis or Marshall, and allows you to play more backcourt combinations (such as using Granger at the "2", my personal desire to go big with our lineup is well documented).

For in the future, I think the Pacers really need to look at a total revamp in how they play offense, because finding a good enough point guard is such a difficult thing to do, and they way we play a great pg is almost required to have any success.

If you dont like the "triple post" offensive scheme, or the regimented and patterns that it uses, thats ok, I understand. Im not necessarily suggesting that though, but I do think there is a way we can play this 2 guard front this year and get better offensively. And yes, I think we can do it and still play Foster, if we use 2 guards out front, use Foster as a screener along the baseline and in the post areas for JO and Harrington.

Regardless of how you do it, clearly I think the internationalization of basketball is swinging us back toward a revival of the 2 guard front. I think the true "point guard" will 15-20 years fron now will be an afterthought, as hybrid guards take over the sport. If we can recognize this and get ahead of the curve, I think we can beat some other franchises to the punch.

Id love to hear if many of you actually like the 1 guard, 2 wing, 2 post players way to play offense, or if how many of you (I know Jay does) likes the idea of a more retro "2 guard" offensive alignment. Nobody is right or wrong, its just a matter of preference.

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

4-out, baby!!

Tbird, I wish I had more time to read your posts on a regular basis, its been a very busy fall/winter for me and I think the next couple months are going to be even busier.

The biggest problem with this isn't the offense (because the infatuation with PG, 2 wing, 2 post lineup in the NBA coincides with the increased emphasis on "defense"), its that you may be committed to a lineup that matces up poorly on defense.

Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

I appreciate the insights, but as a (still) relative newbie for X's and O's, I'm going to make a request. Now if you can't do this I totally understand because it's asking a lot, but could you provide examples (visual examples) of the things you are describing? As a visual learner that would help me out tremendously in envisioning your suggestions for the team. Thanks for taking the time.

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

Id love to hear if many of you actually like the 1 guard, 2 wing, 2 post players way to play offense, or if how many of you (I know Jay does) likes the idea of a more retro "2 guard" offensive alignment. Nobody is right or wrong, its just a matter of preference.

Just my opinion, as always.

tbird

I love to read your posts but I struggle to understand them because I don't always know he nomenclature. (We need diagrams on here)

That said, I'm not smart enough to have a preference, but I do have a question. Why has the 1 point guard system become so popular if it's harder to find a 1 guard? Is the NBA just outgrowing it?

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

Fifteen years ago, there was a surplus of NBA-caliber PGs. Now, there's a shortage. Its cyclical.

I agree we need some way to do graphics on threads like this.

Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

I appreciate the insights, but as a (still) relative newbie for X's and O's, I'm going to make a request. Now if you can't do this I totally understand because it's asking a lot, but could you provide examples (visual examples) of the things you are describing? As a visual learner that would help me out tremendously in envisioning your suggestions for the team. Thanks for taking the time.

Well, Im not computer savvy enough to do it, but I bet someone on this board probably is. I wish Pacer digest had a "telestrator" option on it somehow.

Let me try and explain it by words, and hopefully someone will follow up with this visually and make it make sense.

A 1 guard front positions a player out front with the basketball at the top, generally bringing the ball down the floor. He then has to choose to take "action" to either the right or left, and make the first pass either to a player on the right wing or left wing. Our inablility defensively to pressure this player is my biggest pet peeve about our team currently by far, but thats another thread. This gives you a player at the top center (Tinsley), and 2 wing players. Generally speaking, the remaining 2 players when you play this way are on each respective block so you can remain balanced. Sometimes however they might have one on the low block and one at the high post, creating a 1-3-1 alignment instead.

A 2 guard front gives you a player on the right top, left top, and generally gives you a player on the right wing and left wing. (This is what jay means by playing "4 out"). Your remaining one player plays somewhere in the paint.

Now, for this particular group of players, Id use a 2 guard front alot in order to play without Tinsley and to play bigger. Id use Foster/Baston as a kind of "rover" on offense, who's job would be primarily to set screens for my interior players, like JO, Harrington, and others, and to step out and set "flare screens" for the 2 players based up top.

If someone smart can draw that somehow someway, Ill be happy to try and explain further.

As far as why teams dont do this more often, instead of trying to pigeonhole a mediocre player into a traditional point guard role, I cant answer that. In some cases its just personal preference, in others they actually have a good point guard that can handle it traditionally speaking (not many though), and in some cases its just poor coaching in my opinion, and a lack of imagination.

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

I think I can see what your getting at and it sounds like you may be right in that 1's are getting harder to come by these days. Ever wonder if Sarunus had JT's handles what we might see When JT and Sarunus played together early last season (2005), not sure what game it was, but the defense had a difficult time with all the ball movement those two created being on the floor at the same time. It may have been one of those (it worked for a short while things). Then JT went down with some ailment and I have'nt seen it since

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

T'Bird. I mentioned awhile back (when we were trying to figure out the playbook) about pulling up Visio Tech to make some quick JPG/GIFs of diagrams. I've just been too busy to do it.

I agree that it helps a ton.

A 2 guard front gives you a player on the right top, left top, and generally gives you a player on the right wing and left wing. (This is what jay means by playing "4 out"). Your remaining one player plays somewhere in the paint.

As for the topic, RC has done a lot of these 2 guard sets this year rather than a single PG, and when they run that the offense is totally different (Saras/DA is the most common combo, but even JT has been used this way).

Often it doesn't feature JO out there either, mostly because with him the plays get more vertical (length of court) than horizontal (side to side). For example, JO comes out to the elbow PnR and creates space for the ball to go toward the rim, ball returns to him for the jumper. Or that thumb screen play they run off the low block. That's a single side play (not mirrored on the other side) and has very little ball movement from side to side like the "4 out" sets do (with a big crossing the lane on ball rotation).

I think a big problem right now is Rick trying to find a way to get some of the other players into comfortable spots on offense. They aren't all all-stars of course, but it's a little like that situation. Not so much "we all need touches", but rather that from the coaching view you want to have multiple threats and get all the talent involved.

But if some players are put into uncomortable scoring positions (for them) during plays then they aren't really a threat. IMO it's pretty freaking tricky to create effective plays that put every player on the court into his comfort zone at the same time or off the same movement.

If Al was just Reggie than having him roam the 3 line for the JO kick-out would be fine, but trying to find ways for both of them to work the low post is trickier, mostly because Al isn't big enough to deal with the true big help that would release off of JO if JO dropped down into the lane.

In that way Brad Miller was a much better pairing with JO on the frontline, and even Foster is currently. Just consider the 2 passes to Jeff from JO inside for the dunk and layup. Al is fine posting with a decent size pairing, but otherwise he doesn't really play big inside.

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

great post as usual, tbird. a couple of thoughts:

are there examples of current nba teams which play more of a 2 guard front? phil jackson's lakers maybe? how about the bulls, since they have so many small guards? and how do other teams match up to them?

how does tinsley fit in a 2 guard front? i do understand from your post that the whole idea of doing a 2-guard front is to reduce the reliance on tinsley (or another "true pg", since they are so rare now). but if we're keeping tinsley, shouldn't we try to take advantage of his abilities by playing one guard front?

lastly, how much of a learning curve is this? the example you cited (the "triangle") is notoriously difficult to learn. is that typical for 2 guard fronts?

jay, why does going with this lineup mean a mismatch on defense? it seems to me that it is more flexible in allowing you to play defenders who are not necessarily good pg's - in our team, maybe playing marquis and orien together in the backcourt.

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

I think that your diagram is fairly accurate, in a "nonaggressive" initial configuration.

Oftentimes the center man plays low and comes out to meet a potential pass from whichever guard has the ball. Or, alternatively, the wing man on the side of the court as the guard controlling the ball comes out for the pass. Simultaneously, as the guard with the ball makes a move towards a wingman for a potential pass, the other guard positions himself in a supporting position to the guard with the ball, so that a quick reversal of the floor can be made.

If the wingman receives the ball, if the center is playing low, he oftentimes sets a screen for the other wingman to come through the lane or screens for the guard that made the initial pass.

If the center had been playing high when the wingman received the ball, he might roll to the basket for the pass, creating space at the high post for the other wingman or one of the guards to get a 10-15 foot shot.

What I've always liked aboute the 2-guard offense is that it lends itself much better to a motion game in the half-court. It is all about screening to create an opportunity for a teammate or vacating space to create open space for a teammate to receive a pass while "on the move".

This is exactly how all of us oldtimers learned how to play basketball back in the 50s and 60s starting out even in grade school. As we got older, our ability to recognize opportunities and the methods we used to screen and create space became more sophisticated.

This way of playing does enable using a pair of guards that each might have weaker ball-handling skills than typical PG. I also believe it also makes opposing backcourt defenses work harder becauase the offense can be initiated by either guard on either side of the floor at any time, and the offense also typically contains more movement.

I happen to agree with Thunderbird regarding his assessment of one of our most glaring weaknesses... our inability to stop the opponent at the point of attack... i.e., our inability to play an opposing PG straight up and prevent dribble penetration or to prevent him from quickly initiating his offense.

The two-guard offense would be a great way of improving the defensive abilities of our backcourt in the event that we cannot acquire a decent PG that is also a capable defender. Examples would be Marquis and DA, Marquis and Danny or Danny and DA. [I really would have appreciated Marquis and AJ, but that's a different story since we traded the wrong PG.]

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

Yeah, the drawing is very basic. We used to drop the center about halfway down the lane, stack one of the wings, then bring the other wing around the double screen. There's about a million things you can do with it. We also used to drop into a 1-4 offense that tended to drive some teams nuts. Our guards were so bad that whoever got the ball first shot it in order to prevent a turnover!

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

I prefer the standard configuration, as I consider dominating the post to be one of our team strengths. I do like the idea of 2 reliable guys who can create, dribble and bring the ball up the floor. Although I like Danny, I don't think he's ideal for that role at the 2. I have appreciated Jackson's play, but I don't know that he's suited for that role either. (Some would say he's a better 3 than a 2)

I'm intrigued with the idea that we could get a primary distributor like Andre Miller, or even Tinsley on his better nights.

Perhaps we could have a "line change", where the second team off the bench played this sort of set. (With Saras and Armstrong/Greene running the show)

If our strength as a team was a good compliment of versatile guards and a physically dominant/ smart 5, I would be more in favor of this sort of approach.

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

jay, why does going with this lineup mean a mismatch on defense? it seems to me that it is more flexible in allowing you to play defenders who are not necessarily good pg's - in our team, maybe playing marquis and orien together in the backcourt.

For our team, it could prove adventageous.

You frequently end up playing two "combo guards" and two "combo forwards". Against a big SG, you could have a problem. Against a quick PG, you could have a problem. Against a team playing two post players, you could be undersized.

I prefer to think that you've got to force your opponent to match up with you. But most coaches follow the "herd mentality" and don't like to force teams to match up to them - what if they try something different and fail? If the do, they get criticized for "not following the herd". And its easy to make excuses for following the herd.

Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

Great discusion with some interesting points ...

I have very mixed views on this set up for an offence.

My first thought are on the
The Type of players ... In my experience and opinion the type of players needed to play this offence have to be well rounded players capable of doing several different actions on offence, most importanting shooting ... For example it becomes considerably easier to defend the system when the players in this system are poor shooters ... Having said that the more i look at our players the more i think we do have players to fit the system .... if open Danny, Jax, Al and Tins can all hit a 3 .... they all also have at least one other offensive attribute that need to be considered .... for example a drive and dish or a post up isolation ... However there are many other players that may become isolated or ineffective within this system .... How many teams are going to take Quis, foster or baston seriously on the perimeter ... This leads on to your suggestion of using a Basline Screener to free up space for the players you want in the positions you want ....

I was very unsold by the idea of this system till i really thought about the screener... Exactly what you were thinking of i am unsure however the impression i got, and liked, was that of posibly rotating on offence to allow outer players to take up favourable positions .... for example say marquis was handling as one of the 2 guards... foster in the weakside corner would be seeminly useless but him seting a screen 15 feet from the basket ... Danny could run from the oposite corner using the screen ... The ball can be worked accross from Quis to the other guard say Jax (were clearly going big) ...
...Now we have several posibilities Danny may (unlikely) be free .... foster may be able to rotate to the basket likely drawing the defense of the Central player, say J.Os man, leaving 1 simple pass to J.O in the lane (we have seen these happen recently!) If neither of these are on J.O can come High post to get the ball foster can set another screen weekside and Quis can run round to renetrate and so on ... that kind of rolling csreen play would intrest me ... certainly more than, at times, what seems like statue offense.

One Major downside i can see is this would require players to be almost automaticly reading the situations, take Jacksons offence in L.A. as a perfect example ... This takes a lot of practise which is hard to find mid season ... it is also something that over the last few years we have stuggled to show any signs of being able to do

Another aprehension is rebounding .... ok .. i no its only offensive boards but there is little challenge for it ....

Generally im interested and would welcome its trial ... the more i think about it the more i think it may work with some of the skill sets we have

sorry if that post is a little (or very) rambling ...

'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'Animal Farm, by George Orwell

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

Lets look at 2 of the suggested ways to play out of this 2 guard front and examine them a little bit more in detail.

First of all, the "2 out, 3 under" motion type game. This is using motion offense with no set movements or patterns, letting the 2 outside players primarily play, cut, and screen with one another, and using 3 man movement and actions with the 3 players below the foul line.

This is a fun way to play offense I think, and its fun to coach it. The way it was taught to me to best be utilized was to have one player be primarily a screener for the other 2 players, while those 2 guys be your primary cutters and post up scoring options. A basic movement would be to have your designated screener (lets use Foster for example's sake) to set a downscreen for a cutter (lets say Harrington), who might recieve the first pass on a wing somewhere. Then Foster may now crossscreen for the other player so he can post up (lets say JO for example). Jo could post or go out to the perimeter to run a screen/roll for Harrington, Foster could step up and flare screen for a guard on the weakside.....

......there are a million different ways to go, a million different options or ways to start this, but you get the idea. There would be no play calls from the bench ( a great thing) but the players must be smart and read things on their own (maybe a bad thing for us).

Now, 2 very smart coaches and famous coaches think running it with one primary screener and 2 cutters is wrong. They think its much better having 2 screeners primarily screen for 1 guy. In other words, put your best player down there surrounded by screening options so he can free himself creatively. Ive seen things work well either way, but for the record Im for the first way to do it.

Now for an entirely different way to play out of a 2 guard front, and that's the Tex Winter/ Phil Jackson Triple post pattern. How this works primarily is that instead of reading the defense and cutting appropriately, the offensive players movements are designed and determined by where the ball is. In other words, if the ball is passed to the corner then you make cut "A", if its passed to the post the you make cut "B", and so on. I could diagram the basic movements of this pretty easily, and so can you if you watch the Lakers play, or go get Tex Winter's book at your local library.

One of life's great certainties 99% of the time in sports is that teams all copy what the winning teams do and try and emulate them. However, this hasnt happened with teams running the "triple post" as a committed base offense, and truthfully I dont know why. I guess its because they dont think they can coach it well enough and dont know the minute details that make it work ( maybe its because they dont have Kobe, Shaq, Jordan or Pippen though lol).

Anyway, I like watching the Lakers play offense because again, there are hardly ever set plays called from the sideline, and it makes the game much more free flowing. I also think its much harder to guard a team that doesnt run memorized plays so much, but instead reads and reacts to the situation.

It is very unlikely that the Pacers will ever use a 2 guard front under Rick Carlisle. To my knowledge RC has never played or coached under, or ran himself, a 2 guard front offense. But it is something to think about for not just our future, but for how the game will be played 10-15 years from now, in my opinion.

Lots of good discussion in this thread, and I appreciate the kind words many of you have said.

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

I have greatly enjoyed reading this thread. In high school and college...(very very very small) the team always played the 1 guard offense. I've never really studied much the 2 guard offense but it seems to me (I might be wrong here) that one of the main problems with that offense is that you need your wing/small foward to be a good passer... i.e Pippen .... didn't boston basically run this kind of offense a lot with with Bird??? The other reason I feel the 1 guard offense is used so much is one of the hardest plays to stop is the pick and roll and this play is much easier to run with a 1 guard offense then the 2 guard. Also I would add that with a 2 guard offense don't you need to have 4 players who are fairly active. This means your power foward has to be more then just another big body and comfortable with the ball away from the basket and won't get worn out in all the motion. This can be limiting to teams...

These are just some thoughts.. hopefully those in the Know will correct my mistakes...

I personally with this team would like to see them do more PnRl with Tin's and Al or JO...

ps. I hope it isn't a coincidence that we have this thread and the other thread asking for an improvement in this forum

You didn't think it was gonna be that easy, did you? ..... You know, for a second there, yeah, I kinda did.....
Silly rabbit..... Trix are for kids.

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

It is very unlikely that the Pacers will ever use a 2 guard front under Rick Carlisle.

As I've said, they do use a double PG, 3 man configuration all the time (for lack of a better terminology in my vocab).

Diagram as above but with the big on the low block and crossing the lane as the ball rotates. It's not a traditional 5 players because the 2 guards and 2 forwards play MIRROR versions of each other, they have the exact same roles and options as it appears to me.

It's just a way of running the same set but being able to switch sides depending on how the defense is playing and who the defenders are - like rotating away from an Artest type.

You get some GiveNGo out of this if it's JO/Jack especially, and lots of wing/PG screening meant to clear the passing lane to the Big. Also you'll see the big come to the elbow to run the high pick for the PG, especially if it's Saras since he likes to go to the lane both to shoot off the dribble and to dish back to the big.

When you see Saras and DA on the court together this is typically how they've played, rather than how they used to run Saras off standard SG routes through/around screens, catch and shoots, etc.

IMO they went to this because Saras is much better off the dribble/with the ball and Rick still wanted to play to the depth he had at PG, especially with injuries to JO, Foster, Pollard, and Harrison that came up last year. At some point he needed to rotate every down a notch and go small just to have more talent on the floor, and that meant 2 PGs, and then that meant finding a way to make Saras more productive than he was in JAN as a "SG".

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

I would love to see the Pacers use more of a two guard front, and I think they have the personnel to do so. The main thing you here about a "triangle" type offense is that you need to have versatile players. With the exception of Foster, the Pacers big men, especially JO and Al, have the ability to hit outside jump shots with some regularity. JO has also shown flashes of being a good passer. These two would thrive in this type of offense. Using Foster as a screener would be a great way to take advantage of his constant energy and effort. He doesn't really like/want/need to score, so I think he would embrace this sort of role. The one problem I see with this offense is that Jackson fits in much better as one of the "3 down" than as one of the "2 up." Someone mentioned earlier that Jackson is better as a 3. I completely agree with this. He just doesn't have the ball-handling skills to help out much in a 2 guard offense. He has, however, shown some good passing ability this year, and he could be used similar to the way the Lakers are currently using Luke Walton.

RC used the two guard a bit early in the season with DA and Saras and it seemed to be fairly successful. The problem with the current roster is that Tinsley and Saras can not be on the floor at the same time. Maybe they could if we were playing a team with two Kevin Ollie's on the floor, but even then, one of them would probably light us up. I'd like to see this type of offense run with Marquis and Saras. That could be interesting.

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

When I read this thread earlier, I waited to see where it would go.

My question is just this: How would Danny Granger and Shawne Williams fit into this offense? I'm asking about next year or the year after, and assuming that Williams has earned a bigger role in the rotation by then.

Does this two guard offense allow the Pacers to exploit their long and athletic swingmen?

And I won't be here to see the dayIt all dries up and blows awayI'd hang around just to seeBut they never had much use for meIn Levelland. (James McMurtry)

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

As I've said, they do use a double PG, 3 man configuration all the time (for lack of a better terminology in my vocab).

True, but they are often using the second PG (Saras, sometimes DA) in a "SG role." on the baseline, or in other spots.

They are not "allowing either guard to initiate the offense."

I'll go diagram some things, scan them, and try to upload them. We'll see if that works.

Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
And life itself, rushing over me
Life itself, the wind in black elms,
Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

Re: Playing offense a totally different way: 2 guard fronts with no real point guard

My question is just this: How would Danny Granger and Shawne Williams fit into this offense? I'm asking about next year or the year after, and assuming that Williams has earned a bigger role in the rotation by then.

Does this two guard offense allow the Pacers to exploit their long and athletic swingmen?

I personally think this offence fits very well for these kinds of players .... they can both shoot mid-long range well and are both althetic and effective going to the basket ... infact they are the kind of players that, in my opinion, you want in this lineup .... they can even play together playing similar roles on either side, with a big (say J.O) in the middle which may be a nightmare for others to match up against, although one of them would have to defend the opponents PF and J.O there C and also takes out the Baseline screener ... however they can definitly be effective ... IMO

'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'Animal Farm, by George Orwell

This covers the basics, but you can find the other 4 parts from this link relatively easily.

One problem with implementing a 2 guard front is that it requires the traditional small forward to be a really good passer. Pippen was a great passer, and it's not an accident Odom was getting 5 apg before even joining the Lakers. Granger is not there--yet anyway.

Just from a passing standpoint, these guys are better suited for this than either Al or Granger:

From a decision making standpoint, I think we can throw out Davis and Artest. Still, that means that we're averagely suited for this based upon the most critical position on the floor.

From a versatility standpoint the Pacers have nice pieces: Granger, Jackson, Harrington, Daniels. This offense could hide some of the deficiences of Sarunas. O'Neal would probably benefit the most, because he'd be getting the ball more on the move rather than getting doubled while waiting for the ball. Tinsley would be worthless though. I think we'd need to package Tinsley + Harrington/Jackson in the offseason for one good small forward to make this work well. That and pick up a decent /shooting passing SG/PG for an MLE in the offseason. The problem is, the guys on the list above are generally either untouchable or we wouldn't want them.

The player from Pacer past who springs to mind as perfect for this offense is Rose. He could've been a point forward rather than whining about not getting to play PG. Others: Schrempf, McKey, Brown, Knight, and even McGinnis as a good passing 4 rather than 3.